I hated thinking that Deckard might be a replicant when I first heard the possibility. But after reading so many different analyses, opinions, and forums it is a difficult thing to disagree with. My favorite related idea is that Rachel and Deckard are later-generation replicants, both with implanted memories. When I think about that I assume Deckard would be a more recent version than Rachael simply because his character seems more human than Rachael. Having only seen the Director's Cut of the movie and not read the books I feel I know very little about it all. And now after reading so many debates and arguments online I'm just itching to read the book. I don't think Deckard is one of the "6 skinjobs" Bryant mentions because of numerous things I've read on different Blade Runner sites. BUt it drives me crazy how Gaff knew about the unicorn dream Deckard had. I only really see two pissibilites related to this: 1-Gaff didn't know and it was just a freaky coincidence, or 2- he knows because his own memories are implanted in Deckard's brain. No matter how many times I watch the movie I can't find definite proof for either theory, which I suppose is one of the many things that makes Blade Runner such a great film.
Another thing I wish I knew more about was how so many inconsistencies ended up in the film. FIrst, there is Bryant mentioning "6 skinjobs" but then only talking about 5 of them. It seems to have created a very large amount of debate among fans, but I believe the conclusion is just that it was a mistake to let Bryant say six. I just don't understand how nobody could catch such a huge mistake in production. I've also seen it mentioned that there are errors in the chess game being played between J.F. and Tyrell. There are others that I can't think of at the moment, but I just wish I really knew whether these were senseless mistakes or intentional holes in the plot produced by Ridley Scott. I guess answers to my questions lie in books rather than on websites

Yep...most of these things are addressed in detail from Pau M Sammon's book "Future Noir:the Making of Blade Runner". Though a lot of his material was influenced by website discussions such as these. He Interviewed the sources on these topics. A must read for all BR fans.

I much prefer the idea that Deckard is human, with a real past, but that as part of (or a result of) his job as a Blade Runner he was given memory implants along the way, including the unicorn dream. Do the implants make him "more than human"? Maybe. I can live with that concept.

What I don't like is that Deckard as a Replicant would have no extensive past; that diminishes the impact of the character for me. Ford played the character as world-weary, hard-drinking and melancholic and, while I know this could be explained by extensive memory implants in a Replicant, I prefer to think he got that way "naturally".

The "answers" you're looking for are often just "opinion," whether here on the board or in books, but there are lots of facts, too.

I second RidleyNoir's recommendation to pick up Future Noir[i] by Paul M. Sammon and then move on to other books about [i]Blade Runner.

Be sure you post your opinions!

"It would only take a nudge to make you like me; to push you out of the light."

When I watched BR as a kid, all I really remember taking from the film at the end was that Deckard had a girlfriend who was a robot & she could drop dead on him at any minute. To me, that left me with a feeling I had never experienced in a sci-fi movie. It seemed like such an unhappy ending to me, an ending I hadn't experienced in any of the other movies I'd watched at the time.

It never crossed my mind that he was a replicant.

When I watched it again as I was older, lots of thoughts & possibilites went through my mind, but that kid in me still hated the idea of Deckard being a replicant to a certain extent. When I watched it again later in life, it seemed to me that Deckard was implanted with Gaff's memories to do a job that Gaff was no longer able to do since he was injured. It seemed obvious... Replicants were used to do hard labor for humans & Gaff always found Deckard easily & seemed to know his thoughts.

I'm able to accept that the clues point to him being a replicant, but I like the fact that it is still left open. I like movies that make you really think & Blade Runner is the greatest example of this type of movie in my mind.

Does anyone know when and where the theory that Deckard is a replicant originated? Could this just be new twist to renew interest?

Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty is the epitomy of the Aryan Superman. "You are so perfect" as uttered by JF sums it up. Deckard is repeatedly outsmarted and butt kicked by each of the replicants. It is only through their mercy that he survived the story line. Batty hauls his miserable and vulnerable arse up the side of the building with the saliva of this weak human dripping from his face. And Leon who had thoroughly noodelized him would have finished the job and performed the terminal frontal lobotomy forthwith except for the grace of Rachel. Zhora and Pris both subsume him physically and he shoots them both unarmed. How can this weak and slow witted specimen be construed as "perfection"? Possibly a later model that exhibits all of the traits and weaknesses of a human? "More human than human is the motto?"

Ridley Scott and the screen writers may have injected this twist to the originl story line, but what did Philip K. Dick want? I have not read Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep for several decades. I think the answer lies there.

Last edited by starramus on Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In the book DADoES, Deckard is human. In the original script...and intention, Deckard was human. It was during re-writes that the android theme came into play. Thus...the end result...Deckard is a Replicant in the movie.

Kipple wrote:In the book DADoES, Deckard is human. In the original script...and intention, Deckard was human. It was during re-writes that the android theme came into play. Thus...the end result...Deckard is a Replicant in the movie.

That qualitatively frees me from rereading DADOES. My wife bought me that and a couple of Dick's other works in a compilation titled "Counterfeit Unrealities". That was a couple of solstices ago and I still haven't reread it. There is so much more productive to read. We all have a finite amount of time before we are "lost like tears in rain".

Kipple wrote:In the book DADoES, Deckard is human. In the original script...and intention, Deckard was human. It was during re-writes that the android theme came into play. Thus...the end result...Deckard is a Replicant in the movie.

*Spoilers!*

I wouldn't assume that he's human; there's no proof. He even meets another Blade Runner, Phil Resch, who is a replicant but doesn't know it. Isn't that a clue?

Kipple wrote:In the book DADoES, Deckard is human. In the original script...and intention, Deckard was human. It was during re-writes that the android theme came into play. Thus...the end result...Deckard is a Replicant in the movie.

*Spoilers!*

I wouldn't assume that he's human; there's no proof. He even meets another Blade Runner, Phil Resch, who is a replicant but doesn't know it. Isn't that a clue?

Also, he can't get into Mercerism, a religion based on empathy.

Resch is not a bloody android! And yes...Mercerism is based on empathy, something the androids don't have. Deckard, along with his wife Iran, would fuse together via the empathy box.

Kipple wrote:In the book DADoES, Deckard is human. In the original script...and intention, Deckard was human. It was during re-writes that the android theme came into play. Thus...the end result...Deckard is a Replicant in the movie.

*Spoilers!*

I wouldn't assume that he's human; there's no proof. He even meets another Blade Runner, Phil Resch, who is a replicant but doesn't know it. Isn't that a clue?

Also, he can't get into Mercerism, a religion based on empathy.

Resch is not a bloody android! And yes...Mercerism is based on empathy, something the androids don't have. Deckard, along with his wife Iran, would fuse together via the empathy box.

I suggest you re-read DADoES.

I actually took a class in which we studied the novel for two weeks. I have copies of the lectures, just in case you're interested.

I think a lot of this is a matter of interpretation.

Are you saying he's not an android because he's passed the VK test? Couldn't he be an andy that feels empathy? After all, he has a pet squirrel that he claims to love, and he does work for the andy police station.

Then there's this, from Chapter 11:

"'He doesn't know; he doesn't suspect; he doesn't have the slightest idea. Otherwise he couldn't live out a life as a bounty hunter, a human occupation - hardly an android occupation.' Garland gestured toward Rick's briefcase. 'Those other carbons, the other suspects you're supposed to test and retire. I know them all.' He paused, then said, 'We all came here together on the same ship from Mars. Not Resch; he stayed behind another week, receiving the synthetic memory system.'"

"'He doesn't know; he doesn't suspect; he doesn't have the slightest idea. Otherwise he couldn't live out a life as a bounty hunter, a human occupation - hardly an android occupation.' Garland gestured toward Rick's briefcase. 'Those other carbons, the other suspects you're supposed to test and retire. I know them all.' He paused, then said, 'We all came here together on the same ship from Mars. Not Resch; he stayed behind another week, receiving the synthetic memory system.'"

He, and the other androids lie. It seems to be part of their "nature".